The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Music Education Software[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is totally unreferenced. There is no inclusion criteria. By choosing to compare some software, and not the other, author makes advertisement, contrary to WP:SPAM. Article is also contrary to WP:IINFO as the article contains "long and sprawling lists of statistics, but does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanjagenije, hoping I can fix this. Also hoping I'm posting correctly on this article. I'll try to answer all your issues individually

This article is totally unreferenced & WP:IINFO as the article contains "long and sprawling lists...[edit]

When I created this page, I used the article Comparison of audio player software as a template, hoping that by following it's structure, I would be creating this article correctly. Both articles give a yes/no feature list that doesn't have references for each yes/no. I also tried to include as much details as possible. My comparison charts are much smaller than the audio player comparison one.

There is no inclusion criteria. By choosing to compare some software, and not the other, author makes advertisement, contrary to WP:SPAM.[edit]

I plan to keep adding other programs/software. I'm still researching all these products in detail, which takes time. I'm adding them as I go. I plan to include ALL music education software. Just will take some time. I also am not trying to make advertisement for any of them, just a detailed comparison of all of them.

Thanks!

Sthayne23 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lack of refs is not a reason to delete (except BLPs) and assuming this is spam is imply ABF. Claiming that it is long and sprawling and at the same time misses a lot out seems odd. Certainly the nom is free to add their favourite (or least favourite) software. Inclusion criteria would be nice, but again lack thereof is not a reason for deletion. Very much a WP:sofixit nomination. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Keep and improve. While concerns about the article are warranted, everything seems fixable, and comparison of music education software is a legitimate topic. GregorB (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Rich said, a lack of references isn't a reason to delete this article. Instead, the article should be kept and improved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic, does not appear to be an advertisement for anything. Looks like the capitalization issue has been fixed by a move. — Gwalla | Talk 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.